Monday, March 13, 2017

Today's students live in media-dominated bubbles. They stream Netflix, check Snapchat, Facetime friends, and scroll Instagram — simultaneously on laptops, iPads, and phones — all while purporting to do their evening homework. Parents tell us that homework now takes five or six hours a night for their children. But candidly, most of our parent conferences end up being conversations about how to wrestle devices away from their kids. Families acknowledge that more often than not, their sons and daughters are in bedrooms with doors closed and with devices on full blast. It's a mystery how much "work" is actually being done.

That's because today's media-saturated world demands multitasking to parse the competing inputs. "Multitasking" seems like a badge of honor for modern professionals and learners. But for most children and adults, multitasking is a myth that deserves to be disproved. Multitasking by its definition relies on interruption. It (wrongfully) claims disruption as a blessing. Countless scientific studies have refuted this premise. Instead, every endeavor benefits more from full attention, not fractured thought. Every test, quiz, or homework assignment benefits more from dedicated study, not digital disturbance.

A helpful video from NBC News tries to make sense of this contemporary obsession with multitasking. The scientists quoted in the clip argue that monotasking is in fact more vital for brain development. They note that interruptions of fewer than three seconds can double the rate of errors on simple tasks. Multitasking can lead to a difficulty in ignoring irrelevant information and in memorizing facts, both of which are crucial for young learners.

Source: ASIDE 2017

Here are some other articles that provide terrific ideas for teachers and parents about how to negotiate the multitasking impulse in our children:

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Adam Grant's book, Originals: How Non-Conformists Move The World, has vaulted to the top of best-seller lists since its publication last year. The book is a fascinating study of creativity, imagination, ingenuity, and success. It examines the conditions and case studies of standout individuals who embody vision and entrepreneurship. As a top-rated Wharton professor in organizational dynamics, Grant is a leading voice in studying what makes historical and contemporary figures unique in their influences.

Source: ASIDE 2017

Recently, our school held its annual Colloquium evening. Here, parents, teachers, alumni, and staff came together for a night of food and conversation to share ideas as adults. Like a book club, the Colloquium each year picks a thought-provoking publication to inform small-group exchanges. This year, we read Originals, and we were lucky enough to have Adam Grant himself phone in to our gathering to answer questions and inspire our audience.

We were surprised, however, in searching the Internet, to find very few discussion questions centered on the book. We wrote our own list of questions, both for the small-group conversations and for the author himself. We wanted to share our list, in case any book clubs or schools out there are reading Grant's terrific book about self-expression and innovation.

Essential Question:

“The last time you had an original idea, what did you do with it?” Did you “speak up and stand out”? Why or why not? (p. 13)

Discussion Questions:

After reading the book, do you see yourself as either “creative” or “original”? Why or why not?

Adam Grant has his own definition of originality: “introducing and advancing an idea that’s relatively unusual within a particular domain, and that has the potential to improve it.” Do we have our own personal definitions of what it means to be “original”? (p. 3)

Do you think your current job or life role allows you to be creative? To be original? Why or why not?

Overall, did you feel that Adam Grant laid out a strong roadmap for originality, looking to the past for examples and to the future for methodologies?

Why do so many of us automatically accept the “default” options in life instead of engaging in research and making informed decisions for ourselves?

What do you think of Adam Grant as a writer, with his mix of narrative voice and scientific scholarship, and his interweaving of examples?

What did you learn from this book?

Which of the “Actions For Impact” in the last chapter did you find the most helpful? Which (if any) are you thinking of trying?

Adam Grant suggests that procrastination can actually help entrepreneurs build companies that last. How does society view procrastination? How can teachers or parents find ways to reward thoughtful, deliberate, and strategic procrastination?

Does a person have to be an “informed optimist” to be creative and/or original? Do pessimists make poor change-makers? (p. x)

How much “borrowing” is allowed before a dynamic and change-making idea becomes successful but not necessarily “original”?

How can we apply the phenomenon of “vuja de” to our own lives – seeing something familiar with a fresh perspective? (p. 7)

Are there other examples of people who enacted change by becoming “curious about the dissatisfying defaults” in our society? (p. 8)

“Practice makes perfect, but it doesn’t make new.” How does this statement inform our jobs as parents and teachers? (p. 8)

Do you agree that achievement crowds out originality? Because it brings a dread of failure?

In the end, after reading all of the anecdotes in the book, do you think originals crave risk or prefer to avoid it?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the Sarick Effect? Where else in life might it be useful to start with the open admission of one’s weaknesses? Where might such a strategy be harmful?

How do we take into account the inherent difficulties and errors in self-assessment? Seventy percent of high school seniors rate themselves as above average in leadership skills, and 94 percent of college professors think they are doing above average work. How many of us view our children or ourselves as above average? Why? (p. 33)

How do you feel about Adam Grant’s note regarding the greater historical number of “creative” accomplishments made by men as compared to women? Is it a matter of time / freedom / access to producing a greater volume of output? Or is it a matter of “speaking while female”? (p. 37, 85)

If peer evaluations provide the most reliable judgments of new ideas, how can we be more open to genuine feedback?

How do you feel about the notion of “idiosyncrasy credits,” built up by “quirky” individuals to justify their creativity and earn them respect? (p. 67)

“Younger brothers were 10.6 times more likely than their older siblings to attempt to steal a base.” How do we think about risk-taking and risk aversion in our own lives? In our children’s lives? (p. 150)

Do you agree that praising character rather than behavior is the ideal strategy?

If “groupthink is the enemy of originality,” how can we avoid that trap in a culture that increasingly emphasizes collaboration and teamwork? (p. 176)

Do you agree that “dissenting opinions are useful even when they’re wrong”? (p. 185)

Is originality just creativity plus action?

Do you agree that “no one has the right to hold a critical opinion without speaking up about it”? (Ray Dalio, Bridgewater Associates, p. 190)

Does your current life include “critical upward feedback”? Would you like it to? (p. 203)

Do you agree that the better personal mantra is “I am excited” as opposed to “I am anxious”? (p. 216)

Raise your hand: Do you use Internet Explorer or Safari as your web browser? Do you feel more linear or patterned than Chrome or Firefox users? (p. 5)

What are some ways to take extreme risk in one arena and offset it with extreme caution in another?

Let’s talk about Seinfeld: Was it really original? Or just different? Or just smart? Are these the same things?

How do you feel about “The Positive Power Of Negative Thinking”? (p. 212)

Author Questions:

In your book you talk a lot about risk-taking and potential failure – that achievement can crowd out originality because it brings a dread of failure. For us as teachers and parents, how can we assuage our children’s fear of failure in a culture that still values A+’s and college admissions?

Since Originals was published, have you come across any new people or companies that you wish you could have included in your book?

Schools by their nature are in the business of assessment. Can you give us any guidance in how to negotiate the inherent problems with self-assessing, for students and teachers, knowing the research that says most people think of themselves as “above average”?

You quote one of your former students, Justin Berg, as finding that, on average, “women make better creative forecasts than men.” Could you tell us more about this idea? How does it fit with the other interesting notes in your book regarding the greater number of “creative” accomplishments made by men as compared to women?

You write convincingly about the importance of peer evaluations in providing the most reliable judgments and the most helpful feedback about new ideas. Do you have any suggestions about how parents can apply this model to their daily lives? Or how teachers can do the same?

We liked your notion of “idiosyncrasy credits” in explaining why some people are afforded the respect to introduce new ideas, to deviate from expectations. Would you mind telling us more about this idea? Is it something we should all be trying – to be more idiosyncratic?

We were surprised to read that procrastination can actually help entrepreneurs build companies that last. It’s somewhat different from the message we often instill in our children, about advance planning. Are there ways that you recommend for teachers or parents to reward or encourage thoughtful and deliberate procrastination?

In thinking about writers, entrepreneurs, artists, and inventors, how much “borrowing” do you think is allowed before a dynamic and change-making idea becomes successful but not necessarily “original”?

Do you have any suggestions about how we can we apply the phenomenon of “vuja de” to our own lives – seeing something familiar with a fresh perspective?

You talk about the notion that “groupthink is the enemy of originality.” How can we avoid that trap in a culture that increasingly emphasizes collaboration and teamwork?

You rightfully note that many “originals” never act on their ideas. They conceive of bold or innovative notions, but they never act on them. What do you think holds them back? In other words, why some but not others?

“Practice makes perfect, but it doesn’t make new.” This was a particularly interesting line from your book. Do you have a sense of how this statement can inform our jobs as parents and teachers?

Could you tell us a little bit about what you are working on for your next project?

Out of all the organizations and individuals that you highlight in your book, is there one that stands out in your mind as being particularly unique it its story or its embodiment of a truly original mindset?

Okay, finally – let’s talk about Seinfeld. We here are New Yorkers, so of course we agree with your praise of the show. But after reading your book, we wonder: Was Seinfeld really “original”? Or was it just different? Or was it just smart? Are these the same things? How can we distinguish between those similar but different concepts of achievement?

Many thanks to Adam Grant for his generous time in speaking to us during our Colloquium evening. Also, we want to credit Natasha Chadha (@MsChadha92) for her terrific ideas in helping to draft these discussion questions. Finally, we want to thank Dolly Chugh (@DollyChugh) and Stefani Rosenthal (@StefRosenthal) for their leadership in staging such a successful Colloquium evening.

Friday, March 3, 2017

The National Association Of Independent Schools (NAIS) 2017 Annual Conference just wrapped up in Baltimore, Maryland. The two days of sessions, speakers, and confabs all highlighted the evolving roles of schools and school leaders within the ever-competitive learning landscape.

All of the links, resources, and videos from our workshop are posted on our “Visual Classroom” website. The PowerPoint from our presentation is also now live on the page. If you happen to take a look at the slides and graphics, please feel free to get in touch with your feedback and additions.

We also appreciate the enormous encouragement from our school’s Headmaster and Director of Communications in supporting our trip. It was a real treat as well to see our former head from 15 years ago pop into the back of the session room.

The highlight of this year's conference was without a doubt the lively and thought-provoking talk by Sir Ken Robinson. With characteristic wit and insight, Robinson reminded us that children are learning organisms. They love the internalization of language and ideas, but they don’t always love “education.” This is because the nation's school systems operate on efficiency, not talent. They prioritize shared cultural knowledge, rather than the inner yearning for discovery.

Other speakers included Susan Cain and her ruminations about the power of introverts to change the world, as well as intriguing sessions that focused on data-driven assessments and alumni engagement. The most fun, however, came from the accidental hallway encounters with long-time friends and colleagues from across the country. These sorts of run-ins are what make this gathering so meaningful.

Thanks to all of the NAIS organizers for staging such a smooth conference. And if you weren’t able to attend this year’s symposium, follow the #NAISAC tag on Twitter for great on-sight reporting and resources.